Monday, 18 July 2011

Stony Stratford Smoking Ban Motion Postponed?

It would appear that rumours of a withdrawal of Herr Bartlett's motion were correct. The reason given for this change of tack, though, are the special kind of Bartlett bonkers we've come to expect.

The motion to ban smoking in Stony Stratford will not take place at tomorrow's town council meeting (Tuesday) and will now be discussed at the next meeting in September.

As reported in last week's MK NEWS, Councillor Paul Bartlett was planning to postpone his motion as he believes his opponents' arguments are 'flimsy' and they need more time to prepare.
His justification is rock solid, d'you see, everyone else's arguments are the shaky ones. And the sky is, of course, purple with turquoise polka dots.

The official statement from Stony Town Council reads as follows:

[...] we have been notified by Cllr Paul Bartlett that he wishes to withdraw his motion no (iii) on the above agenda and to place it on the agenda for the Town Council’s meeting on 20 September.

In accordance with standing order 3b(iii), I therefore confirm that this motion will not be considered at the above meeting.
Unfortunately, without seeing the agenda, it's difficult to know if this means that the other two items for discussion - as detailed at AboutMyArea/MK11 - will be going ahead as planned, or not. (EDIT: They will).

Well, what do we make of that, boys and girls?

UPDATE: Gawain finds it rather amusing too.

UPDATE 2: Had to shoot off after posting this so hadn't seen Simon Clark's article on this. There's doubtless much truth in what he says HERE.


Ed said...

Details can be found here:-

Andrew said...

"he believes his opponents' arguments are 'flimsy' and they need more time to prepare"

I think that's a damn fine thing for him to do.

Or, at least I would, if I didn't also think the little weasel was lying through his teeth.

In reality, I'd imagine he's just waiting for the media to forget and he'll be trying to drum up support from other councilors.

He can't be strengthening his arguments - because he hasn't got any. But he might be working out how much more distortion, manipulation and flat-out lying he can use.

Anonymous said...

I think that Simon Clark's hit the nail on the head.


Dick Puddlecote said...

Thanks Ed, will amend.

Ed said...

Here are the motions:-

(i) Stony Stratford Town Council does not condone smoking and the health risks associated with it.
This Council seeks to reduce the amount of litter in our streets and to protect our historic town from
germs, general nuisance and the possibility of young people in particular being burnt by cigarettes.

(ii) Stony Stratford Town Council wishes to encourage all businesses in the town and, in doing so, to
recognize the leading role they and residents can play in preventing the spread of disease, injury,
litter, smoke, illnesses such as asthma, lung cancer and the narrowing of arteries, heart disease and
its unpleasant other side effects and including the impact discarded cigarettes have on residents of
Market Sq and High St in particular and children who have to put up with this 24hrs a day.

(iii) Stony Stratford Town Council seeks the implementation of a full street smoking ban within the
Town Council area of Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes.
The above to be moved by Cllr Paul Bartlett

Twisted Root said...

We'll be back.

Ciaran said...

Has this rather disturbing character ever made it though a couple of sentences without irrelevantly mentioning children?

I noticed the other day he said you lot thought you had the right to go round burning children. Now, according to this motion (what an appropriate word) they're on the streets 24 hours a day. What are they doing there?

Twisted Root said...


We take it in shifts :)

Anonymous said...

Ciaran said:

Now, according to this motion (what an appropriate word) they're on the streets 24 hours a day. What are they doing there?"


Trying to avoid vehicle fumes from ambulances.

Twisted Root said...

Seriously though, it looks like Bartlett has been reading the Fabian tip toe manual. If the first two motions pass demonising smokers as causing ill health, litter and children's eyes to be burnt out of their sockets, then is it not entirely reasinable to vote for the ban on 20th September?

One can easily imagine the begining of the proposer's speech on 20th September - 'This council agrees that smokers cause ill health, disease, litter and are a danger to children. Is there any good reason to vote against the ban?'

Anonymous said...

Do we know who the MP is for this area?

Peter Thurgood said...

Bartlett believes his opponents' arguments are 'flimsy' and they need more time to prepare!

Oh boy, now have heard everything. Can you imagine a general fighting a war along those lines? "Hang on men - we mustn't attack yet, as the enemy isn't ready"

Who on earth does this man think he is fooling? He is waiting for fresh ammunition from his new suppliers at ASH before he plunges in again. His first attempt was foolish and badly planned. With his new backers he is hoping for total victory!

We must plan ahead of him and be totally ready

Anonymous said...

Actually, answering my own question. MP is Iain Stewart who (con) who voted against the smoking ban.
Maybe some of the residents should contact him

Dick Puddlecote said...

Twisted Root: As you say, we'll just go back in September in larger numbers.

Anon: It is Iain Stewart, yes. I invited himj to be a speaker for Saturday's event but he had a number of pre-arranged constituency meetings. He did say, though, that he was taking a 'keen interest' in the matter and that he had received representations for and against the proposal.

Gawain Towler said...

Representations (plural?) for... I wonder who from, aprat from Mr Bartlett of course. Wonder what their post codes are.

Anonymous said...

Watch that ASH doesn't get another councilor in a different town to quietly and quickly, without warning, propose a total outdoor smoking ban, it gets passed and then shows up in the early morning mainstream news - like magic. Better be thinking ahead to if they pull it off that way, then what would be the response and how quickly could things go into action. Anti-smoking is spiteful and does not recognize defeat. It has lots of money and will do every dirty underhanded trick in the book.

PT Barnum said...

I read on the Tobacco Analysis blog that only one fine has been issued since the ban on smoking in parks in New York was introduced and that was to a photographer who goaded police into giving him a fine. Prissy park users are complaining about nasty smokers not being dealt in summary fashion. If these are flagship denormalisations for the antis, why the lack of enforcement? And why the lack of whining from ASH?

Just makes me wonder what Bartlett is being set up for by ASH-Phizer.

Anonymous said...

@PT Barnum - I don't think they're too worried about enforcement and smokers being seen to be punished by any agency. It's the insidious psychology of denormalisation they're after IMHO - the feeling that the smoker has of not being able to be relaxed about smoking anywhere.


Anonymous said...

This is the way they work - kick things down the road a bit in the hope that when they return to it our attention is elsewhere, so they can ram through what the fcuk they like without protest.

The thing is, we're onto them. We know the tricks they pull and we're already one step ahead.

Of course the only way to really put a stop to facists like Bartlett
is to take them down a dark alley way and beat the living crap out of them until they agree to stop interfering in our lives.

These people only understand violence, or the threat of violence, which is why they are so keen to oblige mozlems at every opportunity - they're shit scared of them. Time to take a leaf out of the book of Sharia perhaps?

Anonymous said...

Well done Councillor Bartlett I live in Glasgow & outside EVERY hospital there are lots of smokers & thousands of cigatette ends. In the local botanical gardens cigarette ends are strown all over the grass for small children to pick up. Lets follow enlightened nations like Canada & most of the USA & ban smoking in public places

Dick Puddlecote said...

Anon@18:38: "Of course the only way to really put a stop to facists like Bartlett is to take them down a dark alley way and beat the living crap out of them until they agree to stop interfering in our lives."

I understand he is getting the message from local kids who have taken to posting butts through his letterbox. Could be a permanent thing knowing kids. ;)

Anon@18:53: You pay taxes to have it cleared up, ever thought of talking to your local councillor about it ... or is that too much effort for you?

budgie said...

Let's not forget that every (UK duty paid) filter butt has 'earned' the treasury around 25p.

And not a word of thanks.....

dunhillbabe said...

Reminds me of when Gordon Brown didn't call an election because he wanted 'more time' to show us how good he was - was the only time i actually warmed to Alex Salmond, who called Brown a 'feartie from Fife... the first Prime Minister NOT to call an election in case he won' - priceless

Anonymous said...

Anon@18:53: I am a little confused by your statement. Do you mean public places, such as arenas etc? That is in force in this country already (wembley stadium is an example). The discussion is about banning smoking on streets - something that I believe is only in place in certain parts of California although not having been to all these places in CA, I can't confirm that is really the case or whether the PR is having us believe this. Indeed I was in California last week and was able to smoke in the streets and in bar patios in the town I was in. Ashtrays were provided in the streets too and there were loads of people smoking.

There are also some places in the US where you can still smoke indoors. Last time I was going through Atlanta airport, I found smoking rooms inside the airport and from what I was told by friends who visited there last year, there are places in Las Vegas where you can smoke inside.

Seattle is quite strict on how far you have to be away from an entrance or window, totally not helped by the fact that they put ashtrays in front of the entrances......

You can smoke on the streets in Canada too (yes, was there recently too).

In both Canada and the US it is also possible in some hotel chains to get smoking rooms. I have one for a trip next month.

If you are talking about arenas and suchlike public areas - same as the ignored ban in New York - then you are right that it is quite prevalent in most states. However, Cllr Bartlett is discussing banning on all streets in SS, which is something completely different and that is not what they have done in 'most of Canada and the US'. As you can tell, I am a smoker and traveller so I have first hand knowledge of this and could cite more examples to the point of boring everyone, unlike the second hand knowledge that anti-tobacco would like us to believe.


Anonymous said...

Just three or four years ago I witnessed the lollygagging Mr Bartlett attending - if not actually hosting - a Barbequeue on the very public Millfield (Stony Stratford) next to the childrens play area!

Hypocrasy in anyone (especially our politicians) is probably the greatest sin of all; Besides, his track record for self publicity, Mr Bartletts only other talent is for persuading the feble minded to support his limp opinions and hence his ability to augment his living by getting the local tax payer to reward him for existing. No normal employer would let him use his brain for anything more than shelf-stacking at a Tescos.